> why support the difference between ports and controls ?
> This is done in the C galan and tony somehow managed to remove this
> difference in the C++ galan.
Because throughout all the XAP discussions we have made it clear that
controls are event-driven and ports are audio-rate data (specifically audio
data). Controls are more flexible in their data typing.
We have argued many hours about th ebenefits/drawbacks of using normalized
float data for everything and the decision we came to was that it just isn't
the best model. I point you at th earchives for the discussions :)
> I have not read much of this code but tony said he managed to remove
> this.
LADSPA is much the same way - connect anything to anything. But several
people in the XAP discussion feel that normalized data (0 to 1.0 or
whatever) is bad. I am still of the position that I could be convinced to
support two basic control types: numerical (normalized) and other (strings,
data block, etc). This, however, is still not the same as audio-rate
controls, which is what you get when you plug an oscillator into a knob.
The simplest concept is that they are different things. Audio and Control
data. Reconsidering this notion would takes us WAY back to early XAP
discussions. Maybe that is OK - anyone want to make a case for a new
fundamental model?
Tim